Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

need for religion religion?

Expand Messages
  • AGNIESZKA MONIKA WIKLENDT
    hello, i m new. first, i have a request - could people please quote only what they need from the previous email, rather than have the last three week s worth
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      hello, i'm new.

      first, i have a request - could people please quote only what they need
      from the previous email, rather than have the last three week's worth
      attached to the ends of their new emails? it just makes it REALLY hard
      to follow. thanks, and i don't mean to be bossy, it's just a request.

      next, i'll get straight into it, shall i?

      > There will always be a need of religion. I would
      > ...
      > general, religion has provided a positive
      > influence upon society.

      there are societies that do quite well without religion. religion is
      not *needed*. all i've seen religions good for is recruitment. the only
      reason ppl turn to religion for faith and hope and whatever else is
      because: (a) they fear that if they don't they'll be smote (a point
      already mentioned by another member of this group); (b) they have
      little faith in themselves (a fact they won't admit to, but it's true).

      i personally belong to no religion. i do believe in a god of sorts.
      i've yet to be shown a religion, which celebrates life and doesn't
      prosecute "bad" things, like yearning for love (ooohhh, bad bad) - also
      a point already raised by someone else.

      > It is a great idea to look to the welfare of the
      > poor and to foster education, but this does not
      > happen of itself. It comes of some direction and
      > this is of religion. One of the reasons why

      what about the salvation army? the red cross? amnesty international?
      these are not religious groups, yet they help the needy, poor and
      battered. goodness of people comes from the people, not their religion.
      yes, many religious groups set up such things, but if there were no
      religions, do you really believe there'd be chaos, violence and
      disrespect?

      > Christianity won out in the Roman era was because
      > it emulated the sort of social welfare program
      > that was already in place by the Jews. The

      christianity won out because of their manipulation of people's fear -
      after all, they sold credits for the afterlife (just an example, there
      are many mroe).

      christianity won out because ppl may have seen the original mesasge of
      christ, not of what christianity had become during the roman era.

      > completing religion of Mithraism was more
      > interested in the esoteric aspects of religious
      > outlook and most importantly, it did not accept
      > women members.

      i'm sorry - what year/era were women allowed to become priests in
      christianity? when were women respected because of christianity?

      > I grant that in one sense, "religion" is defined
      > as a devotion to a supernatural power. And this
      > sort of fantasy can lead to problems. But it does
      > not have to be so, if we are aware that it is a
      > fantasy ...

      most people don't.

      > NOOism as the philosophy of the 21st century can
      > provide a solution.

      forgive my naiveness, but i've never heard of NOOism.
      just as last year was the first i'd ever heard of Baha'i.
      what sort of beliefs do you have? etc... is this a
      philosophy or a religion? if it's a religion, what is it's
      philosophy? i keep seeing NOOism come up in these threads.

      > We believe in God because our brains have been evolved
      > in a manner to enable this. It is time that came to
      > realise that it is the brain which is the truer reality
      > rather than the God that it creates.

      buddhists have no god. i'm not saying buddhism is a good religion, it's
      just as corrupt as any other, but i'm saying that maybe it's not
      particularly smart to think of a god - depending on what your
      interpretation is of the word 'god'. i said earlier that i believe in a
      god of sorts. to expand, i believe in a higher power, not necessarily
      borne of one being or the being itself, but more an energy, a balance
      in the world/universe.

      i do agree that itis the mind that is a truer reality. i like the way
      you've put that. we believe in higher orders because we are capable of
      imagining them. we want to believe there is a guide of sorts. however,
      i'm not sure this is a good thing. the tone i gather from your words
      indicate you think it is....

      > Maybe that's why we have to work hard all week and go to
      > church every Sunday.

      i know you said your email was for entertainment purposes only, and i'm
      not sure if your side comment here was serious or not, but i'm a
      believer in non-praise of a higher being. if they're so high and
      almighty, they ought not to become offended if we simply live as good
      people, rather than grovelling.

      that's my two cents. i meant all comments with all due respect (i'm not
      good with conveying a sense of respect, though i assure you i'm humbled
      to be here, so far).

      though it seems from the heated argument between charles and eduard
      means that healthy arguments are not frowned upon here. sometimes the
      best ideas and theories come out when someone is challenged and forced
      to think more on their concept.

      ag. :-)

      miss agnieszka wiklendt, b.sc.
      ---------------------------------
      mistress of the mouse
      enrolled in: b.sc.(biotech)(hons)
      life sciences; uni of newcastle
      room LS4.05 (no phone)
      lab LS4.26 (ph: 4921 7886)
      ---------------------------------
      "The great tragedy of science
      - the slaying of a beautiful
      hypothesis by an ugly fact."
      -- Thomas Huxley
      ---------------------------------
    • Eduard Alf
      ag, I agree that we should keep the content of the emails short. My own practice is to leave only originating email, unless it is too long. You say that
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ag,

        I agree that we should keep the content of the
        emails short. My own practice is to leave only
        originating email, unless it is too long.

        You say that religion is not needed, yet you also
        say that you have a "god of sorts". You are
        contradicting yourself there.

        As to religions which do not prosecute, you might
        look at Shintoism. But then, my point was that
        religion has provided a positive influence, "in
        general". Certainly there have been bad things
        done by religion, but one has to look at the
        overall result.

        I am not saying that organizations that help
        people are religion based [although that is the
        case for the Salvation Army], but that religion
        provides a "direction" which fosters creation of
        such organizations.

        I did not say that with no religion there would be
        "chaos, violence and disrespect". However, one
        might look at the present city culture in the US
        at present.

        Christianity did not win out in the Roman era by
        manipulation of "people's fear". If you wish to
        use "fear" as a reason, then you would have to go
        beyond the Roman era. Much of misdeeds of
        Christianity came about in the middle ages when it
        was the only game in town. In the Roman era,
        Christianity had to compete against the existing
        religions ... Mithraism in particular ... and it
        would not have won if it had depended upon fear.
        Christianity did not win because of the message of
        Christ. People do join organizations because of
        what real benefit it provides them. If
        Christianity only had the message then it would
        have been no better than any other religion at the
        time.

        The completing religion of Mithraism did not
        accept woman in any role. Women have always been
        respected within Christianity. Within the
        Catholic form, Mary is almost elevated to a god
        status. Numerous saints have been women. Are you
        saying that Mother Teresa was not respected?? I
        realise that women have not been made priests
        within the Catholic sect, but that does not mean
        that they do not have a role.

        NOOism is the philosophy which I created. It is
        based upon the premise that it is our neurons
        which are the thing which seeks to be satisfied.
        It is also related to Noosphere which was proposed
        by Teilhard de Chardin [a French priest].

        eduard





        -----Original Message-----
        From: AGNIESZKA MONIKA WIKLENDT
        [mailto:agnieszka.wiklendt@....e
        du.au]
        Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:52 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] need for religion religion?


        hello, i'm new.

        first, i have a request - could people please
        quote only what they need
        from the previous email, rather than have the last
        three week's worth
        attached to the ends of their new emails? it just
        makes it REALLY hard
        to follow. thanks, and i don't mean to be bossy,
        it's just a request.

        next, i'll get straight into it, shall i?

        > There will always be a need of religion. I
        would
        > ...
        > general, religion has provided a positive
        > influence upon society.

        there are societies that do quite well without
        religion. religion is
        not *needed*. all i've seen religions good for is
        recruitment. the only
        reason ppl turn to religion for faith and hope and
        whatever else is
        because: (a) they fear that if they don't they'll
        be smote (a point
        already mentioned by another member of this
        group); (b) they have
        little faith in themselves (a fact they won't
        admit to, but it's true).

        i personally belong to no religion. i do believe
        in a god of sorts.
        i've yet to be shown a religion, which celebrates
        life and doesn't
        prosecute "bad" things, like yearning for love
        (ooohhh, bad bad) - also
        a point already raised by someone else.

        > It is a great idea to look to the welfare of the
        > poor and to foster education, but this does not
        > happen of itself. It comes of some direction
        and
        > this is of religion. One of the reasons why

        what about the salvation army? the red cross?
        amnesty international?
        these are not religious groups, yet they help the
        needy, poor and
        battered. goodness of people comes from the
        people, not their religion.
        yes, many religious groups set up such things, but
        if there were no
        religions, do you really believe there'd be chaos,
        violence and
        disrespect?

        > Christianity won out in the Roman era was
        because
        > it emulated the sort of social welfare program
        > that was already in place by the Jews. The

        christianity won out because of their manipulation
        of people's fear -
        after all, they sold credits for the afterlife
        (just an example, there
        are many mroe).

        christianity won out because ppl may have seen the
        original mesasge of
        christ, not of what christianity had become during
        the roman era.

        > completing religion of Mithraism was more
        > interested in the esoteric aspects of religious
        > outlook and most importantly, it did not accept
        > women members.

        i'm sorry - what year/era were women allowed to
        become priests in
        christianity? when were women respected because of
        christianity?

        > I grant that in one sense, "religion" is defined
        > as a devotion to a supernatural power. And this
        > sort of fantasy can lead to problems. But it
        does
        > not have to be so, if we are aware that it is a
        > fantasy ...

        most people don't.

        > NOOism as the philosophy of the 21st century can
        > provide a solution.

        forgive my naiveness, but i've never heard of
        NOOism.
        just as last year was the first i'd ever heard of
        Baha'i.
        what sort of beliefs do you have? etc... is this a
        philosophy or a religion? if it's a religion, what
        is it's
        philosophy? i keep seeing NOOism come up in these
        threads.

        > We believe in God because our brains have been
        evolved
        > in a manner to enable this. It is time that came
        to
        > realise that it is the brain which is the truer
        reality
        > rather than the God that it creates.

        buddhists have no god. i'm not saying buddhism is
        a good religion, it's
        just as corrupt as any other, but i'm saying that
        maybe it's not
        particularly smart to think of a god - depending
        on what your
        interpretation is of the word 'god'. i said
        earlier that i believe in a
        god of sorts. to expand, i believe in a higher
        power, not necessarily
        borne of one being or the being itself, but more
        an energy, a balance
        in the world/universe.

        i do agree that itis the mind that is a truer
        reality. i like the way
        you've put that. we believe in higher orders
        because we are capable of
        imagining them. we want to believe there is a
        guide of sorts. however,
        i'm not sure this is a good thing. the tone i
        gather from your words
        indicate you think it is....

        > Maybe that's why we have to work hard all week
        and go to
        > church every Sunday.

        i know you said your email was for entertainment
        purposes only, and i'm
        not sure if your side comment here was serious or
        not, but i'm a
        believer in non-praise of a higher being. if
        they're so high and
        almighty, they ought not to become offended if we
        simply live as good
        people, rather than grovelling.

        that's my two cents. i meant all comments with all
        due respect (i'm not
        good with conveying a sense of respect, though i
        assure you i'm humbled
        to be here, so far).

        though it seems from the heated argument between
        charles and eduard
        means that healthy arguments are not frowned upon
        here. sometimes the
        best ideas and theories come out when someone is
        challenged and forced
        to think more on their concept.

        ag. :-)

        miss agnieszka wiklendt, b.sc.
        ---------------------------------
        mistress of the mouse
        enrolled in: b.sc.(biotech)(hons)
        life sciences; uni of newcastle
        room LS4.05 (no phone)
        lab LS4.26 (ph: 4921 7886)
        ---------------------------------
        "The great tragedy of science
        - the slaying of a beautiful
        hypothesis by an ugly fact."
        -- Thomas Huxley
        ---------------------------------


        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Bill Harris
        Smote, I really like Smote. Bill ... From: AGNIESZKA MONIKA WIKLENDT To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:52 AM Subject: [existlist]
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Smote, I really like Smote. Bill
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: AGNIESZKA MONIKA WIKLENDT
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:52 AM
          Subject: [existlist] need for religion religion?


          hello, i'm new.

          first, i have a request - could people please quote only what they need
          from the previous email, rather than have the last three week's worth
          attached to the ends of their new emails? it just makes it REALLY hard
          to follow. thanks, and i don't mean to be bossy, it's just a request.

          next, i'll get straight into it, shall i?

          > There will always be a need of religion. I would
          > ...
          > general, religion has provided a positive
          > influence upon society.

          there are societies that do quite well without religion. religion is
          not *needed*. all i've seen religions good for is recruitment. the only
          reason ppl turn to religion for faith and hope and whatever else is
          because: (a) they fear that if they don't they'll be smote (a point
          already mentioned by another member of this group); (b) they have
          little faith in themselves (a fact they won't admit to, but it's true).

          i personally belong to no religion. i do believe in a god of sorts.
          i've yet to be shown a religion, which celebrates life and doesn't
          prosecute "bad" things, like yearning for love (ooohhh, bad bad) - also
          a point already raised by someone else.

          > It is a great idea to look to the welfare of the
          > poor and to foster education, but this does not
          > happen of itself. It comes of some direction and
          > this is of religion. One of the reasons why

          what about the salvation army? the red cross? amnesty international?
          these are not religious groups, yet they help the needy, poor and
          battered. goodness of people comes from the people, not their religion.
          yes, many religious groups set up such things, but if there were no
          religions, do you really believe there'd be chaos, violence and
          disrespect?

          > Christianity won out in the Roman era was because
          > it emulated the sort of social welfare program
          > that was already in place by the Jews. The

          christianity won out because of their manipulation of people's fear -
          after all, they sold credits for the afterlife (just an example, there
          are many mroe).

          christianity won out because ppl may have seen the original mesasge of
          christ, not of what christianity had become during the roman era.

          > completing religion of Mithraism was more
          > interested in the esoteric aspects of religious
          > outlook and most importantly, it did not accept
          > women members.

          i'm sorry - what year/era were women allowed to become priests in
          christianity? when were women respected because of christianity?

          > I grant that in one sense, "religion" is defined
          > as a devotion to a supernatural power. And this
          > sort of fantasy can lead to problems. But it does
          > not have to be so, if we are aware that it is a
          > fantasy ...

          most people don't.

          > NOOism as the philosophy of the 21st century can
          > provide a solution.

          forgive my naiveness, but i've never heard of NOOism.
          just as last year was the first i'd ever heard of Baha'i.
          what sort of beliefs do you have? etc... is this a
          philosophy or a religion? if it's a religion, what is it's
          philosophy? i keep seeing NOOism come up in these threads.

          > We believe in God because our brains have been evolved
          > in a manner to enable this. It is time that came to
          > realise that it is the brain which is the truer reality
          > rather than the God that it creates.

          buddhists have no god. i'm not saying buddhism is a good religion, it's
          just as corrupt as any other, but i'm saying that maybe it's not
          particularly smart to think of a god - depending on what your
          interpretation is of the word 'god'. i said earlier that i believe in a
          god of sorts. to expand, i believe in a higher power, not necessarily
          borne of one being or the being itself, but more an energy, a balance
          in the world/universe.

          i do agree that itis the mind that is a truer reality. i like the way
          you've put that. we believe in higher orders because we are capable of
          imagining them. we want to believe there is a guide of sorts. however,
          i'm not sure this is a good thing. the tone i gather from your words
          indicate you think it is....

          > Maybe that's why we have to work hard all week and go to
          > church every Sunday.

          i know you said your email was for entertainment purposes only, and i'm
          not sure if your side comment here was serious or not, but i'm a
          believer in non-praise of a higher being. if they're so high and
          almighty, they ought not to become offended if we simply live as good
          people, rather than grovelling.

          that's my two cents. i meant all comments with all due respect (i'm not
          good with conveying a sense of respect, though i assure you i'm humbled
          to be here, so far).

          though it seems from the heated argument between charles and eduard
          means that healthy arguments are not frowned upon here. sometimes the
          best ideas and theories come out when someone is challenged and forced
          to think more on their concept.

          ag. :-)

          miss agnieszka wiklendt, b.sc.
          ---------------------------------
          mistress of the mouse
          enrolled in: b.sc.(biotech)(hons)
          life sciences; uni of newcastle
          room LS4.05 (no phone)
          lab LS4.26 (ph: 4921 7886)
          ---------------------------------
          "The great tragedy of science
          - the slaying of a beautiful
          hypothesis by an ugly fact."
          -- Thomas Huxley
          ---------------------------------


          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.